There is no 9/11 Truth Movement. There are people who seek and accept the truth no matter what it is. And there are the rest who pursue an agenda of suppressing facts about the event.

The most relevant facts about 9/11 are already known to those who have been willing to make a serious, objective investigation of them. Here they are:

Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were not involved and were instead framed. (The “confession” tapes were faked and the FBI has never placed bin Laden on its wanted list for 9/11!)

Objects other than the announced planes struck the World Trade Centers 1 and 2, the Pentagon and Shanksville. (No one has ever traced any of the debris from the scenes to any of the planes, which could be done through serial numbers)

Members of our government and other powerful people framed “radical Muslims” and engineered and covered up the crimes. (If the Muslims are innocent, who else but those who accused them could be complicit?)

What is the significance of these facts?

We’ve been lied to.

The people who did it got away with it and are still around.

It could happen again as the perpetrators have impunity.

There is no battle to find out what happened. There are facts that have been uncovered. The battle is between those who promote the facts and those who obscure them.

To understand this conflict, picture a forest full of trees. Trees with gold ribbons wrapped around them represent the facts uncovered.

Now picture a large group of people, with an agenda besides the truth, armed with gold ribbons. They wrap the ribbons over so many of the remaining trees that anyone who walks through the forest will have trouble discerning the facts, including the three mentioned above.

OK, now that you have the picture, you can begin to understand why most people believe the official theory. Here is how the battle plays out:

Arguments flare up over issues that cannot be easily resolved.

Consider the debate over what brought down World Trade Center 1 and World Trade Center 2. Most people (myself included) lack the expertise to explain how impact, fire and oil affect buildings and what the consequences are of the use of explosives.

The result – the debate goes on endlessly. Those who support the official point of view tell dissenters the burden of proof is on them. From a layperson’s point of view, no one “wins.”

And, the massive attention to these kinds of issues diminishes attention to other issues that could more easily refute the official theory, like the framing of bin Laden and the use of airplanes.

If there really were a unified truth movement, the following questions would be foremost:

If you knew that the bin Laden tapes were fake or that the FBI never had “hard evidence” on him for 9/11, would you support the official theory?

If you knew that Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93 never struck anything that day, would you support the official theory?

If you knew that officials like New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani ordered the premature clean up of a crime scene, would you support the official theory?

Despite the evidence against the official theory, no one in power ever challenges it. When leaders buy and sell a lie, don’t think for a minute that they are capable of acknowledging the truth.

Don’t fall for the 9/11 truth movement. Seek instead the truth until it becomes as obvious as the air you breathe. Those on the inside conducted these crimes.

Now that Egypt has rid itself of Hosni Mubarak, perhaps the United States can finally admit that it has a bad habit of supporting dictatorships. Consider the following people, all of whom we have backed these noted abusers of human rights at one time or another:

All the while supporting these and other regimes, the United States has promoted its image as a freedom and peace-loving nation. Before the advent of the Internet, we could get away with that, but evidence of our misdeeds continues to escalate to all parts of the globe.

It is just a matter of time before the truth about matters such as our government’s culpability in 9/11, the lack of any justifiable reason for going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq and our involvement in global drug trafficking reaches a critical point internationally.We face the wrath of the rest of the world, not only for what we have done wrong, but even more so for the hypocrisy we have displayed. This is likely why President Obama appeared so indecisive as to whom to support in the Egyptian controversy.

We need a program that works: A Twelve-Step Program for Hypocrisy

The program, as currently used, helps millions of those with addictions to alcohol, narcotics, gambling and other ills to find a way to control them. A modified version of the initial steps of the program would go like this:

Admit that one cannot control one’s addiction or compulsion.

President Obama should simply say the following, “The United States does not practice what it preaches. We support dictatorships even though we don’t always support free elections at home. We provoke wars and kill innocent people while we insist that we are a shining example to others. We must stop this compulsion and we need help to do that.”

Recognize a higher power that can give strength.

Participants in the program can refer to whatever or whoever they want as their higher power. Obama could call our higher power our constitutional values of presumed innocence for all, right to counsel, due process and additional tenets of war only as a last resort.

Turn will and lives over to a higher power.

If we followed these values, we would never endorse a leader who abused human rights. We would never rush to judgment to start a war out of convenience. We would also look in our own back yard and stop the war on drugs, which criminalizes many who suffer from medical problems.

To prevent us from losing our way or backsliding back into our addictions, we should remember those who gave their lives bringing our hypocrisy to our attention. Their legacies could serve as a sponsorship (a part of the 12-step program) for our nation.

John Kennedy – who saw that we had no legitimate reason to wage war in Viet Nam and tried to end our presence there despite heavy opposition from the military.

Martin Luther King – who called us to our better selves and who demanded justice and rights for all and thus offended the racist and patriarchal power structure,

Robert Kennedy – who spent most of his presidential campaign talking with voters who did not or could not vote and remains the last candidate not packaged with sound bites, half-truths and lies.

John Lennon – who dared to dream of a better world, which the powers that be took as a slap in the face.

Many more steps follow, such as:

Asking the higher power to remove defects of character, asking the higher power to remove our shortcomings, making a list of all persons harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all (this might take years!), admitting mistakes promptly and spreading the 12-step message.

Time is running out for us to admit to our mistakes. These admissions are not at all a sign of weakness, but rather a sign of strength that will allow our nation to correct its inconsistent vision of itself and of the rest of the world. The longest journey begins with a single step!

Our government should be responsive to us. But with so many people complaining about the size of government, its ineffectiveness and their general discontent with it, there is a disparity between what the public needs from its government and what it gets.

Where should we look to correct this problem?

Don't look to the federal government. It is too big and too remote to respond easily or quickly. Try your local government where most decisions affecting you are made. And try going to the top first.

As one who has served in local government for almost two decades, I have observed a few things.

One is that those who move up in public administration are typically the ones who follow orders unquestioningly and act to please their superiors. They get promotions and praise but their lack of creativity or innovativeness ensures they will make no real difference to the public.

Another observation is that these same people, who give bureaucrats a bad name, in turn promote others without much insight on how to help the public. Think about this when you get the answer from your local government that something is not their responsibility or that they cannot help you.

The system is not about to change. It certainly won't change for anyone working inside it who questions authority or who has a better way of doing things.

Changing the system is in the hands of residents like you. And the person to watch is the city manager because he or she answers to the city council, whom you elect. The city manager controls the management of the city's operations and policy affecting most issues that matter to you.

What are some important issues your city manager has likely handled in recent years?:

They have enforced the federal "war on terror" at the local level, typically with such actions as the demand for gates constructed to protect city buildings and employees from "terrorists."

They have declared curfews, such as in times of rioting or natural disasters.

They have decided whether to recognize employee union demands and whether certain unions should even be allowed to function.

They have had access to FBI "watch lists" on employees and other individuals who express disagreement over policies such as the ones mentioned above.

They have appointed other managers who won't raise any legitimate questions.

So tell your city council what kind of government your city deserves and keep an eye on the one with the most authority, the city manager. Remember, this is the first step in citizen control of public agencies in a real sense rather than merely on paper.

Other ways of fixing the government, such as an emphasis on customer service, less high-level employees doing meaningless "ribbon-cutting" work and the reduction of bonuses to city employees without explanation, can follow when those in authority know you are watching.

When you discuss matters on the Internet and get responses, be alert for those who want to make you the issue. They prey upon those who have the audacity to say what they do not agree with. Once you spot them, you will be wise to avoid communicating with them.

But first you have to spot them.

The Labeler

One sign of trouble comes when somebody puts a label on you. They may say that you are a “liberal” or a “wing nut” or a “wacko” though they do not even know you and do not likely know much about your ideas.

These people are easy to identify because their use of labels is about all they have to offer. They tend to see or understand complicated issues in black and white terms and once they put you in a label box, they do not care what you have to say. Ignore them and move on to more interesting people.

The Subject Changer

A little more subtle are those who pretend to consider your point of view but they ignore the context with which you make your comments. They shift the focus of the debate.

For example, I argued in an essay in 2003 that the Democratic Party should not nominate General Wesley Clark for President. I made this statement because he had not been a member of the party for very long and he had endorsed several Republican candidates for a long period of time shortly before the Democratic primaries.

I got back replies from people who questioned whether I had paid my dues, though I was not a candidate. Some suggested I was a Republican or that I was for another candidate, neither of which was true. Here is a partial list of the replies I received:

The Exasperator

Others may ask you to provide detail for your point of view. And when you do that, they respond with more complaints about your ideas than you can wrap your head around! Too bad you are not discussing the matter in person, where you could cut them off at some point!

It can be mentally exhausting to go through each of the claims made by an opponent, especially one who misstates evidence, misquotes you or takes you out of context or otherwise manipulates you into thinking that you are in a fair debate. If you proceed with the person, you have two choices: (1) answer every claim they make or (2) answer selectively.

Neither choice is very good. Answering every claim will undoubtedly produce more rebuttals from your adversary and more headaches from their unbalanced logic. But if you only answer some of the claims, you will likely get a response that your silence on the unanswered ones must mean you endorse their point of view on them.

Conclusion

You will really go nowhere discussing anything with those who play games with the facts and with your mind. Like the one who pays the piper, you should call the tune in how you debate another person.

Simply say up front that you would like to argue one issue at a time. If the other person does not comply, walk away. If they call you names, walk away. If they insinuate you do not care about victims or any other irrational point of view, walk away.

Some point to passages in the Bible which appear to say that homosexual conduct is a sin. One such passage is 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10, which states: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

But the Bible condemns many activities as sinful. Here is a short list (courtesy of Evil Bible.com):

Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12)

Death for Cursing Parents

1) If one curses his father or mother, his lamp will go out at the coming of darkness. (Proverbs 20:20)

2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9)

Death for Adultery

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10)

Kill People for Working on the Sabbath

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15)

Why do Fundamentalists single out homosexuality?

Some Fundamentalists say that their religion tells them that homosexuals are sinners and that they are exercising their free exercise rights when they publicly state this opinion. But what if someone else said that those who believe gays are sinners are homophobic and that their religion tells them to persecute homophobes? The “religious excuse” can work both ways.

It is worth noting that people used to cite the Bible in favor of slavery. Over time, slavery lost popularity when enough people could see that the Bible can be used to excuse or condemn just about anything. Sooner or later, those opposed to gays will have to stop hiding behind someone else’s words and formulate their own.